Something you may or may not have heard about what with all of the Ferguson stuff floating around.

NYPD cop in Eric Garner chokehold death not indicted - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-eric-garner-chokehold-death-not-indicted-article-1.2031841)

An interesting angle to this one: there's video of the incident. Now, there's no question that Mr. Garner resisted arrest. There's also no question that the officer performed a disallowed maneuver on the suspect. See the video, and you be the judge...

to me this is more messed up than the Ferguson deal.

Capital punishment for resisting arrest and selling loose cigarettes.

I agreed with the decision in the Ferguson case. I disagree with this.

This surprises me. I would have thought there would be one.

Hate to sound like a broken record........but "Play stupid games...win stupid prizes."

If you are in the act of doing something, illegal or not.....and an officer of the law tells you to stop, or requires you to give them your undivided attention... Then you better stop right where your at, shut your bitch lips, and do what he/she asks you to do. At that point in time, your only responses should be yes sir, or no sir, and cooperate in any way possible. In all of the (Officer involved deaths) over the years, it would be safe to say that 99% of them are caused by the suspect/individual in question not cooperating. Now, I am smart enough to realize, that just by not cooperating, or giving an officer a hard time, that it does not give an officer the green light to shoot you. But, I do believe that once you decide that you are not going to cooperate...that all bets are off in regards to you being treated "fairly." Basically saying, that by doing so...you are waiving your rights....and you might end up taking a bullet to the dome.

And I 100% support it.

Yeah the end result in these cases are unfortunate, but breaking the law and resisting authority tends to not end well for the agitator. Anything else is strawman BS

This incident clearly shows why putting cameras on cops won't solve the problems of reckless use of power by the police. This incident was clearly caught on camera.
From the Federalist:
Hands Up, Don't Choke: Eric Garner Was Killed By Police For No Reason (http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/03/hands-up-dont-choke-eric-garner-was-murdered-by-police-for-no-reason/)
( NY statutes)
§ 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
1. He recklessly causes the death of another person; or
2. He commits upon a female an abortional act which causes her death,
unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three
of section 125.05; or
3. He intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.
Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.

The second-degree manslaughter charge requires only two factors: 1) the person charged must have caused the death of the victim, and 2) the perpetrator must have caused the death of the victim via reckless means.

As the video shows, the officer clearly caused the death of Eric Garner, who was alive until the officer put him in a chokehold, a move which is banned by the NYPD for good reason. And why did the police department ban chokeholds? Here’s an article on the subject from 1993, when a previous police chief banned the practice:


The New York City Police Department has issued an order banning the use of choke holds, the restraining maneuvers that cut off the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain and have been blamed in the deaths of suspects here and around the nation.

So an officer used a banned practice that is known to lead to the deaths of people who are subjected to it? That certainly seems to satisfy the second condition of a second-degree manslaughter charge. And again, I have to stress that the entire incident was caught on tape. The evidence is unequivocal. And yet, no indictment.

It is incidents like these that will lead to civil insurrection.

Hate to sound like a broken record........but "Play stupid games...win stupid prizes."

If you are in the act of doing something, illegal or not.....and an officer of the law tells you to stop, or requires you to give them your undivided attention... Then you better stop right where your at, shut your bitch lips, and do what he/she asks you to do. At that point in time, your only responses should be yes sir, or no sir, and cooperate in any way possible. In all of the (Officer involved deaths) over the years, it would be safe to say that 99% of them are caused by the suspect/individual in question not cooperating. Now, I am smart enough to realize, that just by not cooperating, or giving an officer a hard time, that it does not give an officer the green light to shoot you. But, I do believe that once you decide that you are not going to cooperate...that all bets are off in regards to you being treated "fairly." Basically saying, that by doing so...you are waiving your rights....and you might end up getting a bullet to the dome.

And I 100% support it.

What if the cop demands sexual acts? Does that advice still hold? Eh, of course that's silly. Cops would never act in such a way.

Yeah the end result in these cases are unfortunate, but breaking the law and resisting authority tends to not end well for the agitator. Anything else is strawman BS

But yet it seems when the police break the law there are no consequences. (Edit** It seems as if there are no consequences, in many cases)

But yet it seems when the police break the law there are no consequences.

As for this case, I agree. But again, why put yourself in this situation? Why physically fight authorities when you broke the law and know it's not going to end well for you?

As for this case, I agree. But again, why put yourself in this situation? Why physically fight authorities when you broke the law and know it's not going to end well for you?

The issue as to whether or not he had broken the law was debatable. His family claimed there were no smokes on his person or in his car. Again even if true we are talking about a misdemeanor here and the death of a human being.

The issue as to whether or not he had broken the law was debatable. His family claimed there were no smokes on his person or in his car. Again even if true we are talking about a misdemeanor here and the death of a human being.

I'm not justifying the officers action. Never said I did. The end result here was terrible.

His family claims that. Michael Brown's best friend's story is the only view the media wants anyone to know. What do the facts, the evidence, say?

Again, this dude didn't deserve to lose his life. Not arguing that point.

I'm not justifying the officers action. Never said I did. The end result here was terrible.

His family claims that. Michael Brown's best friend's story is the only view the media wants anyone to know. What do the facts, the evidence, say?

Again, this dude didn't deserve to lose his life. Not arguing that point.

Does the cop deserve to be charged under the statutes?

Does the cop deserve to be charged under the statutes?

sure, again, for the fourth time (i know you can read), the cop was wrong

but again, haven't we learned that resisting arrest gets you nowhere (except for a body bag)?

What if the cop demands sexual acts? Does that advice still hold? Eh, of course that's silly. Cops would never act in such a way.

In that situation, that might account for the 1% of the time that an officer instigates the trouble, you would have to do whatever you can to get out of the situation to survive. So, once again..you might have your life taken. But your odds would be exactly the same, as it would be for some random person to break into your house and sexually assault you. Maybe you live...maybe you die.

sure, again, for the fourth time (i know you can read), the cop was wrong

but again, haven't we learned that resisting arrest gets you nowhere (except for a body bag)?

Does that make it okay? Part of having effecting policing is having some level of community trust.

Its like saying a girl wouldn't have gotten raped if she wasn't wearing a skimpy outfit.

What sucks is, once you're in the position Mr. Garner was in, it ends in two ways:

you fight, and possibly lose your life
you go to jail, and live (hopefully) and let the system take it's course

Is what it is, if you choose number one you're clearly on your own and know it. (Jersey...this is not an endorsement of this cop's brutality)

Does that make it okay?

Its like saying a girl wouldn't have gotten raped if she wasn't wearing a skimpy outfit.

No it doesn't. It's also nothing like your rape analogy. Garner didn't deserve to die, but when you put some meathead cop in a situation like this, we're finding out more and more it ends poorly.

The great irony is that police brutality is most likely to happen to people dealing with the police, who are probably engaging in some sort of shady behavior. But their guilt and punishment is for the justice system to sort out, not the police.

These things are only going to become more common with the spread of social media, phone cameras, Youtube, etc.

We'll have to agree to disagree,

In that situation, that might account for the 1% of the time that an officer instigates the trouble, you would have to do whatever you can to get out of the situation to survive. So, once again..you might have your life taken. But your odds would be exactly the same, as it would be for some random person to break into your house and sexually assault you. Maybe you live...maybe you die.
Wonder what part of that 1 %, Daniel Holtzclaw, was responsible for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgtQj8O92eI

Wonder what part of that 1 %, Daniel Holtzclaw, was responsible for?

I'm sure some how it was the women's fault for being in close proximity to a cop. However I'm not going to protest too much because I dont want the local FOP demanding an apology from Pete.

From Daniel Pantaleo To Darren Wilson, Police Are Almost Never Indicted (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/police-indictments_n_6264132.html)

Tamir Rice was 12 years old when police shot and killed him last month within two seconds of their car's approaching him. The story they have told since does not match the video.

Akai Gurley also died last month, shot by a New York officer in what the police say was an accident.

Just a few days ago, a grand jury in Jasper, Texas, declined to indict two white officers who had brutally beaten a black woman on video. They had arrested her for an unpaid ticket, though she had been making monthly payments.

I dont agree with Ferguson protesters but these other cases that have been caught on tape make me sick.
Shooting 12 year old kids playing in the park within 1.5 seconds of the car coming up, strangling people for petty crimes...

This isn't justice.

If you cant do your job without killing the people you are supposed to protect you belong in prison.

Another thing that makes the SI case so egregious is that the selling of untaxed cigarettes is a tax code violation and not a criminal action. i wonder how many tax cheats on Wall Street are subjected to this sort of justice?

Are American citizens going to finally wake up? The system is broken.

We have clear unbiased video evidence and clear rules and laws being broken by officers - and there is NO trial. This is a reason to take to the streets. I hope downtown NYC is at a standstill for the rest of the week. NYPD have specific policy for no choke holds, and the officer statements are claiming there was no choke hold and there was no sign of the "criminal" struggling (to live).

Now let me say it again, we have video evidence of both of these things occurring that the police are claiming did not occur.

Police body cameras are just the start, we need reform in this justice system.

Going to leave this here. From April of this year:

Knox County cop fired immediately after photos show brutal choking of student - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/28/knoxville-cop-fired-immediately-after-photos-show-brutal-choking-of-student/)

To those who explain away disparate and excessive cop behavior by focusing on the actions of the accused, I give you #CrimingWhileWhite

#Crimingwhilewhite is a mind-blowing view into white privilege and the law - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7330333/crimingwhilewhite-explainer)

Michael Brown, Darren Wilson inquest: A better way to pursue justice when police officers kill in the line of duty. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/michael_brown_darren_wilson_inquest_a_better_way_t o_pursue_justice_when.html)

Intersting that Bob McCulloch, the prosecutor, acted more like the defense attorney for the police in the grand jury investigation. I'm not a conspiricy theorist but when it's been shown that we have an administration that never wastes a good crisis I have to wonder if the innocent verdict in that case wasn't scripted from Washington DC. I believe some of those protests around the country would have been squelched considerably had the NYC police officer been indicted. Just my .02

Intersting that Bob McCulloch, the prosecutor, acted more like the defense attorney for the police in the grand jury investigation. I'm not a conspiricy theorist but when it's been shown that we have an administration that never wastes a good crisis I have to wonder if the innocent verdict in that case wasn't scripted from Washington DC. I believe some of those protests around the country would have been squelched considerably had the NYC police officer been indicted. Just my .02

I think you're reading too much into this. The prosecutor didn't act, in my opinion, properly. You don't mount a defense in a grand jury.

Now, asserting that someone in DC was pulling the strings is far fetched, at best.

OTOH, What would encouragement to indict from Washington have meant in re the protests? I'm sure it would have thrown cold water on everything.

I think you're reading too much into this. The prosecutor didn't act, in my opinion, properly. You don't mount a defense in a grand jury.

Now, asserting that someone in DC was pulling the strings is far fetched, at best.

Thanks Obama

OTOH, What would encouragement to indict from Washington have meant in re the protests? I'm sure it would have thrown cold water on everything.

I have no clue what you're trying to say. I'm sure the WH would have preferred an indictment, as did most americans. according to the polls I've seen. There's no evidence that the WH encouraged any protests or violence.

I have no clue what you're trying to say. I'm sure the WH would have preferred an indictment, as did most americans. according to the polls I've seen. There's no evidence that the WH encouraged any protests or violence.

There's never any evidence against this administration because A. The media covers for him amd B. The AG won't allow anyone to look into things. One thing I will say is there's been a hell of a lot of covering up going on and that by itself should raise a lot of eyebrows.

Bob: “Hey Jim, did you hear about the Obama
administration scandal?,

Jim: “You mean the one about Obama emasculating
the military, and firing anyone who disagrees with him?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “You mean about Obama wanting to grant citizenship to
millions of illegals in order to lock in future Democrat election wins?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “You mean the Mexican gun running?”

Bob:
“No, the other one.”

Jim: “You mean SEAL Team 6?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“Obama saying the average family would save $2,500 on their
health insurance premiums?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“Forcing businesses to violate their religious beliefs
by paying for abortion drugs?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Violating the rights and sanctity of our Churches?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“Spending $634 million on a website that doesn’t work?”

Bob:
“No, the other one.”

Jim: “Obama calling for an increase in our debt when he lambasted Bush for the very same
thing?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “You mean the one about Obama spending more than all previous presidents
combined?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?”

Bob:
“No, the other one.”

Jim: “Intentionally trying to hurt Americans during the sequester?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Blocking veterans who secured our freedoms from their monuments, but giving the green light for Illegals to use Monument Mall?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Denying school kids the ability to tour the White House but still spending lavishly on his
parties?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“You mean Obama saying we can keep our insurance and doctors if we wanted to?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“You mean the military not getting their votes counted?”

Bob:
“No, the other one.”

Jim: “The NSA monitoring foreign diplomats?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“You mean the use of drones in our own country without legal authorization?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?”

Bob:
“No the other one:.

Jim: “The IRS targeting conservatives?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“The DOJ spying on the press?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Giving Solyndra 500 million taxpayer dollars, and 3 months later siting idly by as they declared bankruptcy?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails, text messages, and everything else?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Millions of Americans losing their health care coverage?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Forcing Americans to pay sky high premiums for health insurance coverage that they don’t want, and will never use?”

Bob:
“No, the other one.”

Jim: “Ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons, and
falsely blaming the sequester?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Denying Arizona the right to protect its own borders?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Providing weapons to Syrian rebels, many of whom are Al Queda?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “The president’s repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“The 2012 vote where 115% of all registered voters in some counties voted 100% for Obama?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “The president’s unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advise-and-consent role?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“Clinton, the IRS, Rice, Sebelius, and Holder all lying to Congress?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“The President using nearly 1 trillion dollars of stimulus money to fund his cronies and the unions?”

Bob: “No,
the other one”

Jim: “I give up! … Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that scandal about the 65 million low-information voters who don’t pay taxes and get free stuff from taxpayers…….and how they stuck us again with the most pandering and corrupt administration in American history?”

Bob:
“THAT’S THE ONE!”

Jesus this is some serious tin-foiled-hat paranoia going on here.

I think everyone would appreciate if you kept this in the politics forum. Just FYI.

Pointing out that the thread should have been in the political section originally. Look at the title:

No Indictment in Staten Island Officer-involved Death
With that title it couldn't have evolved into anything but a political discussion.

There's never any evidence against this administration because A. The media covers for him amd B. The AG won't allow anyone to look into things. One thing I will say is there's been a hell of a lot of covering up going on and that by itself should raise a lot of eyebrows.

Ahh, that "monolithic media." Nice to know that whatever the source be it the NY Times, the NY Post, MSNBC, FNC, CNN, CBS, ABC, et al. they all have an interest in not doing investigative journalism concerning the present administration. Got it.

Pointing out that the thread should have been in the political section originally. Look at the title:

With that title it couldn't have evolved into anything but a political discussion.
Really? Why?

Because of 3 threads that get into this topic, the one here is in current events and the other two in the political forum.

There's never any evidence against this administration because A. The media covers for him amd B. The AG won't allow anyone to look into things. One thing I will say is there's been a hell of a lot of covering up going on and that by itself should raise a lot of eyebrows.

Bob: “Hey Jim, did you hear about the Obama
administration scandal?,

Jim: “You mean the one about Obama emasculating
the military, and firing anyone who disagrees with him?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “You mean about Obama wanting to grant citizenship to
millions of illegals in order to lock in future Democrat election wins?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “You mean the Mexican gun running?”

Bob:
“No, the other one.”

Jim: “You mean SEAL Team 6?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“Obama saying the average family would save $2,500 on their
health insurance premiums?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“Forcing businesses to violate their religious beliefs
by paying for abortion drugs?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Violating the rights and sanctity of our Churches?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“Spending $634 million on a website that doesn’t work?”

Bob:
“No, the other one.”

Jim: “Obama calling for an increase in our debt when he lambasted Bush for the very same
thing?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “You mean the one about Obama spending more than all previous presidents
combined?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?”

Bob:
“No, the other one.”

Jim: “Intentionally trying to hurt Americans during the sequester?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Blocking veterans who secured our freedoms from their monuments, but giving the green light for Illegals to use Monument Mall?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Denying school kids the ability to tour the White House but still spending lavishly on his
parties?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“You mean Obama saying we can keep our insurance and doctors if we wanted to?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“You mean the military not getting their votes counted?”

Bob:
“No, the other one.”

Jim: “The NSA monitoring foreign diplomats?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“You mean the use of drones in our own country without legal authorization?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?”

Bob:
“No the other one:.

Jim: “The IRS targeting conservatives?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“The DOJ spying on the press?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Giving Solyndra 500 million taxpayer dollars, and 3 months later siting idly by as they declared bankruptcy?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails, text messages, and everything else?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Millions of Americans losing their health care coverage?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Forcing Americans to pay sky high premiums for health insurance coverage that they don’t want, and will never use?”

Bob:
“No, the other one.”

Jim: “Ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons, and
falsely blaming the sequester?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Denying Arizona the right to protect its own borders?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Providing weapons to Syrian rebels, many of whom are Al Queda?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “The president’s repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“The 2012 vote where 115% of all registered voters in some counties voted 100% for Obama?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “The president’s unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advise-and-consent role?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“Clinton, the IRS, Rice, Sebelius, and Holder all lying to Congress?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim:
“The President using nearly 1 trillion dollars of stimulus money to fund his cronies and the unions?”

Bob: “No,
the other one”

Jim: “I give up! … Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that scandal about the 65 million low-information voters who don’t pay taxes and get free stuff from taxpayers…….and how they stuck us again with the most pandering and corrupt administration in American history?”

Bob:
“THAT’S THE ONE!”

Funny. About half of those have been thoroughly debunked here and elsewhere. 1/4 have been shown to be nothing but politics as usual, and the other quarter is the same type of ineptitude that we come to expect from this, previous, and future administrations. As long as listing fake conspiracy theories makes you feel good,go for it.

As long s we think your opinion on all those scandals is all we need we can then head on over to the koolade bar.

As long s we think your opinion on all those scandals is all we need we can then head on over to the koolade bar.

Well, congressional hearings on them haven't turned anything up, even when conducted by the opposing party. They're called facts.

Well, congressional hearings on them haven't turned anything up, even when conducted by the opposing party. They're called facts.

I'd throw out a few but with time, you'll see that many will be proven true.

Pointing out that the thread should have been in the political section originally. Look at the title:

With that title it couldn't have evolved into anything but a political discussion.

Because of 3 threads that get into this topic, the one here is in current events and the other two in the political forum.

As the actual Ferguson thread is in this forum, this is where I chose to post this item. The "Obama to Ferguson" thread is in Politics, where it belongs. Also, what's wrong with the title, if I may ask? There was no indictment in the case of a death involving a police officer in the borough of Staten Island. No slant there. In many cases, the only slant is the one brought to the thread by subsequent posters.

So since a new topic wasn't started on it, maybe this is the place. Quite a shame what happened in NY this past weekend.

So since a new topic wasn't started on it, maybe this is the place. Quite a shame what happened in NY this past weekend.
What happened?

I assume he's talking about the officer killings in NY.

Gunman executes 2 NYPD cops in Garner ?revenge? | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cops-shot-execution-style-in-brooklyn/)

What happened?

you make my point for me just by posting two words, thanks Plu

I assume he's talking about the officer killings in NY.

Gunman executes 2 NYPD cops in Garner ?revenge? | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cops-shot-execution-style-in-brooklyn/)

Why do police forces still deal in fax? Seriously, is this a joke?


Police in Baltimore had reached out via a “warning flier” to alert the NYPD that Brinsley might be en route to Brooklyn, but the fax tragically arrived at 2:45 p.m. — five minutes before the shooting, Bratton said. “The tragedy here was that just as the warning was coming in, the murder was occurring,” Bratton said.

So since a new topic wasn't started on it, maybe this is the place. Quite a shame what happened in NY this past weekend.

Yeah, I was going to post something on this but I held back and waited to see what would happen.... Kind of funny it took three days the see somthing here, and media outlets make no mention that the man who ambushed the two police officers was black... only showing a photo of the shooter. And what about the sherriff deputy in Tarpon Springs, Fla. who was gunned down on the same weekend?.

Where's the outrage?... Where's Al Sharpton?. Where's Barack Obama and Eric Holder?

It is a tragedy all the way around.

Why do police forces still deal in fax? Seriously, is this a joke?
What's a "fax"?

NYPD Shooting: Blue Lives Matter - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/blue-lives-matter-nypd-shooting/383977/)

Not sure if I agree with all his theories/speculation/opinions, but kind of interesting to read.

Some of my facebook friends are changing their porch light bulbs to blue in honor of the recently slain policemen. My sconces are too high or I would do it also. Just wanted to pass the word.

Yeah, I was going to post something on this but I held back and waited to see what would happen.... Kind of funny it took three days the see somthing here, and media outlets make no mention that the man who ambushed the two police officers was black... only showing a photo of the shooter. And what about the sherriff deputy in Tarpon Springs, Fla. who was gunned down on the same weekend?.

Where's the outrage?... Where's Al Sharpton?. Where's Barack Obama and Eric Holder?

It is a tragedy all the way around.

Most media outlets did mention he was black, including several liberal leaning ones, not sure where you are getting your information.

The guys who killed the cop in FL was Latino and he was a criminal trying to escape, whereas the guy in NY specifically stated on his instagram he wanted to kill cops.

Related -

Metro man arrested after allegedly threatening police (http://www.okcfox.com/story/27697564/arrest-warrant-issued-for-metro-man-accused-of-threatening-police)

Most media outlets did mention he was black, including several liberal leaning ones, not sure where you are getting your information.

The guys who killed the cop in FL was Latino and he was a criminal trying to escape, whereas the guy in NY specifically stated on his instagram he wanted to kill cops.

Since Sunday.... All of the big three liberal stations, plus several other only showed a photo of the gunman the crime scene, and described the event. I don't watch CNN or MSNBC so can't speak for them.

No mention of race... Which is a good thing, but interesting how this all plays out.

The two officers were not white and the shooter in Florida was not either.

Where's the outrage?... Where's Al Sharpton?. Where's Barack Obama and Eric Holder?

They all condemned the killings.

They all condemned the killings.

Honest question. Any references? I haven't seen a statement by Obama or Holder on the officer shootings...

edit:I was able to find this finally. Obama, Holder condemn murders of NYPD officers | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/21/holder-calls-police-shootings-act-barbarism/) Still wish it was a full on press conference. Sort of sad Cuba get's a more visible statement than dead officers.